You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.
You're still rich today.
Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.
Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.
Sincerely, The 99%.
The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.
Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.
It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting.
What the *fuck* are you talking about? There's plenty of stuff that can be done. The only reason that they're not being done is that the wealthy would have to foot the bill, and they don't want to.
Good to know. Would be so kind and tell us what these solutions are and how the wealthy are stopping us from putting them in practice.
And then a note to everyone modding parent Insightful: I know that you are having your monthly Let's Blame It on Rich field day here. But I think that you could even try to pretend to have an intelligent discussion here. Like if someone says "I don't think there are solutions" then an answer saying "Yes there is but rich folk are not allowing them" does not count as a constructive discussion.
Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.
Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.
It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.
The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
This is just patently false.
James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.
Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".
These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.
Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying
Sir, your abominable messages equating gay sex to bestiality have to stop. I understand that you try to convince others of normalcy of gay sex by comparing it to your personal experiences having sex with goats. Nevertheless, we feel that it is offensive and moderators are right to continue to mod down your vile messages.
Or did I mean to say that they might down vote you if you just rant and harp about your own point of view without listening anyone. Telling others to "STFU" is not constructive messaging.
2) A segment of the public was in opposition to his cause, and spoke out opposing his viewpoint - fine
You are not being completely honest here. Let's be precise here: They didn't speak out opposing his viewpoint. They spoke out against the person making the point. Not only didn't they try to convince anyone about their views, they singled out one person to be bullied and harassed.
3) A website stopped allowing Mozilla on their site due to being in opposition of his viewpoint - fine
And bullied and harassed they did basically attacking the employee of the said person forcing them to fire him. Nice job.
Bear in mind that these actions that you are fine with are nothing more than actions trying to stifle political discussion by harassing individuals. Giving campaign contributions that target in convincing others about a certain view (even an objectionable view) is different from harassing individuals. The first adds to discussion, the latter removes from it.
Show me the numbers. Not someone's opinion about what they mean, but a detailed description of each experiment and the raw data that resulted.
They already have: it's called the scientific literature. It's not their fault you haven't taken the time and effort to read and understand it.
You obviously haven't followed Stephen McIntyre's never ending battles with Michael Mann and other luminaries in climate science community. Basically what we have is somewhat vague scientific literature and concentrated effort to hide the data and the details of methods.
As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family.
I disagree. The husband of Paula Broadwell (the 'afairee' as you put it) has the right to know that his wife is seriously two-timing him. If this getting this public is the only way of getting the word to him then so be it.
As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.
The director of CIA should not put himself in a position where he can be blackmailed. This is such a basic stuff that I'm willing to guess that CIA has a policy on this.
Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.
The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.
Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.
That is just bullshit.
First, there is no great conspiracy of evil "fossil fuel lobby".
Second, fossil fuels are the friend of the poor. It is Al Gore and other obnoxiously rich people who can afford their electricity bill to threefold without any impact to their lifestyle. Make no mistake about it: If the solutions that are on the table for solving the global warming are implemented, it is the poor who will see their level of confort plummeting. They probably won't be able to afford such luxuries as private automobiles. Meanwhile Al Gore will be still living in his air conditioned castles while flying between them with his private jet.
I have 5 level 80+ chars on WoW, but haven't played the game in at least a year, maybe two, and don't plan to go back to it, even for Pandas.
Even for Pandas? So you are saying that Pandas are basically cool but the game sucks otherwise? I seriously thought that adding Pandas was a bad case of jumping the shark. Well, maybe I just need to admit it to my self: I'm totally out of touch with gamers today. Now if you excuse me, I'll go and find rumors about Football Manager 2013 which I will eventually buy but won't find time to play.
I think the end result of meta-moderation is Groupthink. If you punish moderators that might have a bit of an edge, you end up with moderators that are Group thinking. That will show immediately if you browse at +5.
Mathematics is not dancing with the stars or what not.
Says who? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I say that if this draw even a few bright people towards maths and shows them that this is really interesting stuff, it is a good thing. I do not understand why Mathematicians should appear as some sage-like, ascetic monks.
Given that a RC plane controlling law is prepared, I am curious to find who idea the RC plane was. FBI's or guy's own. The risk that government generates crime to justify a legislation is a worrying one. This is one more reason why encouraging some to commit a crime, should be a crime even when done by officials.
slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:
a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response.
That is because the reporter was not up to the work he was doing. He should asked the guy what he would like to say now that he has a possibility to speak. He would have produced a gush of drivel of leftist platitudes. They usually do and with the general idea that they are victims of "state" and "society" while they are completely ignorant about their own conduct that adds to their state of being bored.
And bored they are as they do not really have material poverty: They know not hunger, not cold from winter. That is what this is all about: This is about nihilistic, bored, self-centered people doing something. People who do not have a slightest interest in anything sensible. If they would, they would appreciate other people's life's work (like a small business shop) and would refrain from burning it down.
God, I fucking hate when people are being complete dicks and these lefties treat them like some fucking victims.
As an European (from Finland), this is mainly a spectacle of American justice system. Here are some random thoughts based on this news.
In here I constantly hear that "American justice system is corrupted, owned by politicians and big money... Blah blah blah." Now we have an example to observe. It seems to me that the judge is this case is not willing to cave in for anything. The junge is strict, has huge balls, and it appears that the best thing he can do for his career, is to make just decision.
I also bet that he is going to deliver his decision in plain language that is readable even to lay persons. This, and the fact that the case is public, will guarantee that if anything will go wrong, you will hear about it. This is quite a good guarantee that there won't be any funny business.
Nothing is perfect and there is a possibility that the decision is rotten. If this is the case, as I mentioned, the hell break loose. Unfortunately, the public ripping of judgements has one unintended consequence: Europeans will hear about it and somehow conclude that because the system is criticized, it must be worse than their own system that receives no such critique. If any, the opposite is true.
You are correct. All the blathering about 'control' and stuff are borderline conspiracy theories. The study is being suppressed because MPAA/RIAA and movie studios, believe or not, are different entities. This requires just basic understanding of bureaucracy. MPAA/RIAA do not want to release the study. They are afraid that movie studios and record labels execs would read it; afraid that they conclude that MPAA/RIAA are a waste of time and good money.
Believe me, this report is read with great interest in head quarters of each and every movie studio.
And understands the difference between causation and correlation:
The State's evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them,6 and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, "[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology." [] They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children's feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.7
The footnote 7 in question in hilarious:
One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in “explo_e” with a “d” (so that it reads “explode”) than with an “r” (“explore”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.
... the global warming naysayers are going to have a field day with this one...
They are all over the thread already. Can't be arsed to engage them anymore, to be honest. Well, we can bask in the warm glow of burning Al Gore strawmen....
I think you should make a reality check. Those of us who do not buy the whole "CO2 is destroying the world" -thing are not having a field day. I browse Slashdot with +4 threshold and I can tell you that it is you having a field day. And by you I mean the folk who is yelling "naysayers", and yelling "denialists", and, this is the best of all, setting up strawmen of "denialist arguments are strawmen relating to Al Gore".
I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken.
This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.
Well there is more to it. I find this concurrence by Breyer interesting. It gives a layman such as myself a clear picture what they ruled:
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately because, given the technical but important nature of the invalidity question, I believe it worth emphasizing that in this area of law as in others the evidentiary standard of proof applies to questions of fact and not to questions of law. [...] Thus a factfinder must use the “clear and convincing” standard where there are disputes about, say, when a product was first sold or whether a prior art reference had been published.
Many claims of invalidity rest, however, not upon factual disputes, but upon how the law applies to facts as given. Do the given facts show that the product was previously “in public use”? 35 U. S. C. 102(b). Do they show that the invention was “nove[l]” and that it was “non-obvious”? 102, 103. Do they show that the patent ap-plicant described his claims properly? 112. Where the ultimate question of patent validity turns on the correct answer to legal questions—what these subsidiary legal standards mean or how they apply to the facts as given—today’s strict standard of proof has no application. [...]
Courts can help to keep the application of today’s “clear and convincing” standard within its proper legal bounds by separating factual and legal aspects of an invalidity claim, say, by using instructions based on case-specific circumstances that help the jury make the distinction or by using interrogatories and special verdicts to make clear which specific factual findings underlie the jury’s conclusions. [...]. By isolating the facts (determined with help of the “clear and convincing” standard), courts can thereby assure the proper interpretation or application of the correct legal standard (without use of the “clear and convincing” standard). By preventing the “clear and convincing” standard from roaming outside its fact-related reservation, courts can increase the likelihood that discoveries or inventions will not receive legal protection where none is due.
Politicians are good at two things: making large strategic decisions that do not require anything now but much in not-so-near future and apologizing stuff that their predecessors have made. This decision will be repealed; nothing to see here, move along.
I see this a lot in politics these days: educated, intelligent journalists lashing out and saying anyone who doesn't agree with their political opinions must not be a member of the human race.
You truly are missing the point. This is not about a disagreeing with political opinion. It is lashing out because Mr. Berlusconi is a criminal of the worst degree. He's using his post as a prime minister shield against various corruption charges, he's hiring child prostitutes, he's appointing showgirls as parliamentary candidates, etc. The guy is an embarrassment to whole Europe. Only the people of Italy does not seem to get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Thiel,
You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.
You're still rich today.
Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.
Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.
Sincerely,
The 99%.
The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.
Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.
It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting.
What the *fuck* are you talking about? There's plenty of stuff that can be done. The only reason that they're not being done is that the wealthy would have to foot the bill, and they don't want to.
Good to know. Would be so kind and tell us what these solutions are and how the wealthy are stopping us from putting them in practice.
And then a note to everyone modding parent Insightful: I know that you are having your monthly Let's Blame It on Rich field day here. But I think that you could even try to pretend to have an intelligent discussion here. Like if someone says "I don't think there are solutions" then an answer saying "Yes there is but rich folk are not allowing them" does not count as a constructive discussion.
Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.
Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.
It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.
The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
This is just patently false.
James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.
Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".
These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.
Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying
Sir, your abominable messages equating gay sex to bestiality have to stop. I understand that you try to convince others of normalcy of gay sex by comparing it to your personal experiences having sex with goats. Nevertheless, we feel that it is offensive and moderators are right to continue to mod down your vile messages.
Or did I mean to say that they might down vote you if you just rant and harp about your own point of view without listening anyone. Telling others to "STFU" is not constructive messaging.
I can't remember but do carry on.
2) A segment of the public was in opposition to his cause, and spoke out opposing his viewpoint - fine
You are not being completely honest here. Let's be precise here: They didn't speak out opposing his viewpoint. They spoke out against the person making the point. Not only didn't they try to convince anyone about their views, they singled out one person to be bullied and harassed.
3) A website stopped allowing Mozilla on their site due to being in opposition of his viewpoint - fine
And bullied and harassed they did basically attacking the employee of the said person forcing them to fire him. Nice job.
Bear in mind that these actions that you are fine with are nothing more than actions trying to stifle political discussion by harassing individuals. Giving campaign contributions that target in convincing others about a certain view (even an objectionable view) is different from harassing individuals. The first adds to discussion, the latter removes from it.
Everybody! Ignore this guy with stupid facts and continue with killer mutant dolphin jokes!
Show me the numbers. Not someone's opinion about what they mean, but a detailed description of each experiment and the raw data that resulted.
They already have: it's called the scientific literature. It's not their fault you haven't taken the time and effort to read and understand it.
You obviously haven't followed Stephen McIntyre's never ending battles with Michael Mann and other luminaries in climate science community. Basically what we have is somewhat vague scientific literature and concentrated effort to hide the data and the details of methods.
As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family.
I disagree. The husband of Paula Broadwell (the 'afairee' as you put it) has the right to know that his wife is seriously two-timing him. If this getting this public is the only way of getting the word to him then so be it.
As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.
The director of CIA should not put himself in a position where he can be blackmailed. This is such a basic stuff that I'm willing to guess that CIA has a policy on this.
Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.
The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.
Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.
That is just bullshit.
First, there is no great conspiracy of evil "fossil fuel lobby".
Second, fossil fuels are the friend of the poor. It is Al Gore and other obnoxiously rich people who can afford their electricity bill to threefold without any impact to their lifestyle. Make no mistake about it: If the solutions that are on the table for solving the global warming are implemented, it is the poor who will see their level of confort plummeting. They probably won't be able to afford such luxuries as private automobiles. Meanwhile Al Gore will be still living in his air conditioned castles while flying between them with his private jet.
I have 5 level 80+ chars on WoW, but haven't played the game in at least a year, maybe two, and don't plan to go back to it, even for Pandas.
Even for Pandas? So you are saying that Pandas are basically cool but the game sucks otherwise? I seriously thought that adding Pandas was a bad case of jumping the shark. Well, maybe I just need to admit it to my self: I'm totally out of touch with gamers today. Now if you excuse me, I'll go and find rumors about Football Manager 2013 which I will eventually buy but won't find time to play.
It would be easier to believe that "Japan's Obayashi Corp" are out of their mind if we would have a link to this on their own web site.
Same here.
I think the end result of meta-moderation is Groupthink. If you punish moderators that might have a bit of an edge, you end up with moderators that are Group thinking. That will show immediately if you browse at +5.
This is a cheap publicity stunt, nothing more.
And that is a bad thing exactly how?
Mathematics is not dancing with the stars or what not.
Says who? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I say that if this draw even a few bright people towards maths and shows them that this is really interesting stuff, it is a good thing. I do not understand why Mathematicians should appear as some sage-like, ascetic monks.
A 26-year-old Massachusetts man with a physics degree
So, what was his Slashdot handle?
Let's find out. Every one who isn't him, reply here: Not me.
Given that a RC plane controlling law is prepared, I am curious to find who idea the RC plane was. FBI's or guy's own. The risk that government generates crime to justify a legislation is a worrying one. This is one more reason why encouraging some to commit a crime, should be a crime even when done by officials.
slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:
a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response.
That is because the reporter was not up to the work he was doing. He should asked the guy what he would like to say now that he has a possibility to speak. He would have produced a gush of drivel of leftist platitudes. They usually do and with the general idea that they are victims of "state" and "society" while they are completely ignorant about their own conduct that adds to their state of being bored.
And bored they are as they do not really have material poverty: They know not hunger, not cold from winter. That is what this is all about: This is about nihilistic, bored, self-centered people doing something. People who do not have a slightest interest in anything sensible. If they would, they would appreciate other people's life's work (like a small business shop) and would refrain from burning it down.
God, I fucking hate when people are being complete dicks and these lefties treat them like some fucking victims.
As an European (from Finland), this is mainly a spectacle of American justice system. Here are some random thoughts based on this news.
In here I constantly hear that "American justice system is corrupted, owned by politicians and big money... Blah blah blah." Now we have an example to observe. It seems to me that the judge is this case is not willing to cave in for anything. The junge is strict, has huge balls, and it appears that the best thing he can do for his career, is to make just decision.
I also bet that he is going to deliver his decision in plain language that is readable even to lay persons. This, and the fact that the case is public, will guarantee that if anything will go wrong, you will hear about it. This is quite a good guarantee that there won't be any funny business.
Nothing is perfect and there is a possibility that the decision is rotten. If this is the case, as I mentioned, the hell break loose. Unfortunately, the public ripping of judgements has one unintended consequence: Europeans will hear about it and somehow conclude that because the system is criticized, it must be worse than their own system that receives no such critique. If any, the opposite is true.
You are correct. All the blathering about 'control' and stuff are borderline conspiracy theories. The study is being suppressed because MPAA/RIAA and movie studios, believe or not, are different entities. This requires just basic understanding of bureaucracy. MPAA/RIAA do not want to release the study. They are afraid that movie studios and record labels execs would read it; afraid that they conclude that MPAA/RIAA are a waste of time and good money.
Believe me, this report is read with great interest in head quarters of each and every movie studio.
And understands the difference between causation and correlation:
The footnote 7 in question in hilarious:
... the global warming naysayers are going to have a field day with this one...
They are all over the thread already. Can't be arsed to engage them anymore, to be honest. Well, we can bask in the warm glow of burning Al Gore strawmen....
I think you should make a reality check. Those of us who do not buy the whole "CO2 is destroying the world" -thing are not having a field day. I browse Slashdot with +4 threshold and I can tell you that it is you having a field day. And by you I mean the folk who is yelling "naysayers", and yelling "denialists", and, this is the best of all, setting up strawmen of "denialist arguments are strawmen relating to Al Gore".
I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken.
You can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-290.ZS.html
This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.
Well there is more to it. I find this concurrence by Breyer interesting. It gives a layman such as myself a clear picture what they ruled:
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately because, given the technical but important nature of the invalidity question, I believe it worth emphasizing that in this area of law as in others the evidentiary standard of proof applies to questions of fact and not to questions of law. [...] Thus a factfinder must use the “clear and convincing” standard where there are disputes about, say, when a product was first sold or whether a prior art reference had been published.
Many claims of invalidity rest, however, not upon factual disputes, but upon how the law applies to facts as given. Do the given facts show that the product was previously “in public use”? 35 U. S. C. 102(b). Do they show that the invention was “nove[l]” and that it was “non-obvious”? 102, 103. Do they show that the patent ap-plicant described his claims properly? 112. Where the ultimate question of patent validity turns on the correct answer to legal questions—what these subsidiary legal standards mean or how they apply to the facts as given—today’s strict standard of proof has no application. [...]
Courts can help to keep the application of today’s “clear and convincing” standard within its proper legal bounds by separating factual and legal aspects of an invalidity claim, say, by using instructions based on case-specific circumstances that help the jury make the distinction or by using interrogatories and special verdicts to make clear which specific factual findings underlie the jury’s conclusions. [...]. By isolating the facts (determined with help of the “clear and convincing” standard), courts can thereby assure the proper interpretation or application of the correct legal standard (without use of the “clear and convincing” standard). By preventing the “clear and convincing” standard from roaming outside its fact-related reservation, courts can increase the likelihood that discoveries or inventions will not receive legal protection where none is due.
The headline should read:
Germany To End Nuclear Power By 2022 yet again
Politicians are good at two things: making large strategic decisions that do not require anything now but much in not-so-near future and apologizing stuff that their predecessors have made. This decision will be repealed; nothing to see here, move along.
This may sound trivial but app-store has a few advantages to apt-get:
1. Programs are presented as icons
2. Programs can be rated
3. App-store tells you what applications are popular
These are important features for casual users.
I see this a lot in politics these days: educated, intelligent journalists lashing out and saying anyone who doesn't agree with their political opinions must not be a member of the human race.
You truly are missing the point. This is not about a disagreeing with political opinion. It is lashing out because Mr. Berlusconi is a criminal of the worst degree. He's using his post as a prime minister shield against various corruption charges, he's hiring child prostitutes, he's appointing showgirls as parliamentary candidates, etc. The guy is an embarrassment to whole Europe. Only the people of Italy does not seem to get it.